George Hammond wrote:
NOTE: I posted this to the (moderated) sci.physics.research
ng (9-6-05). Professionals may respond there if preferable.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Is ZPF Inertia a "semiclassical Gravity" theory?
___________________________
Some time ago I innocently inquired as to:
"Why C would be an invariant for all
observers regardless of their velocity?"
since Relativity provides no physicall mechanism for
this, but merely "postulates" it.
At that time I (naively) suggested it was because of ACCELERATION
(since no two particles can have different velocities unless they
were differentially accelerated somewhere in the past)
.. and suggested that ACCELERATION is the causal mechanism behind
the Lorentz Contraction and the Time Dilation and thus explains
"physically" why the speed of light is an invarient.
LO AND BEHOLD...........
I now find out that this intuition is in fact a veritible cottage
industry and has been for 10 or 15 years!
A celebrated "physical" mechanism for Inertia has been discovered
by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff in 1994:
Physical review A 1994:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/PRA94.pdf
Annelen der Physik 2005:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf
This topic has recently obtained tremendous coverage in the literature
(Physical Review A 1994, Annalen der Physik 2005, etc.)... and is
now known as the "Vacuum Field theory of Inertia".
According to this theory, "Inertial mass" is caused by an
"electirc drag force" caused by matter being ACCLERATED
throught the "Zero Point Fluctions" of the vacuum.
This theory ostensibly explains the Lorentz Contraction, Time
Dilation, Inertia, and according to Sakharov ultimately even
Einstein's Field Equations simply as an interaction between matter
moving through the "zero point fluctions" of the vacuum!
Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff have actually "derived" F=ma
from the ZPF as well as Newton's inverse square law of
gravity!
Some people think it might even replace the Higgs mechanism
of the Standard Model for explaining mass!
At any rate... I'm sure not alone in my intuition that
"acceleration" is the cause of the speed of light being
invarient to velocity... apparently there are hundreds of
scientists now working on the ZPF theory... which apparently
originated with Andrei Sakharov, Zeldovich.. and even Einstein
suspected it as early as 1910 in papers with Abraham
and Stern... and of course historically Lorentz in his ether theory
of the Lorentz Contraction.
Is there any expert here who has a handle on the "offical status"
of this (now widely discussed) ZPF theory of Mass.. and can they tell
me how this theory meshes with QFT and GR.?
Rueda and Haisch's theory, as expressed in "Contributions to Inertial
Mass by Reaction of the Vacuum to Accelerated Motion", Foundations of
Physics 28, 1057-1108 (1998) cannot, as far as I know, account for the
gravitational effects of GR. So there is still much work to do.
The cool thing about their theory is that it replaces mass at a
fundamental level by the field.
In addition to the Higgs theory of the standard model, the "quantum
vacuum inertia hypothesis" is competing with String theory. If the
next generation of particle accelerators fails to find the Higgs
particle then we shall see. String theory has the promise of
predicting the masses of the fundamental particles, something that ZPF
can't do.
Like you, I am curious and I will be keeping an eye out for more.
--Mike Jr.
1. Can the "stochastic EM-ZPF theory" be reconciled
with QFT by calling it a "semiclassical" EM theory?
2. Is there any chance GR can be "derived" from this
semiclassical ZPF theory?
3. Does EM-ZPF relate QFT to GR.. and if so why isn't
this a major path to Quantum Gravity?
4. Is this considered the explanation of 'Mach's Principle"?
5. Is this a (semiclassical) causal mechanism of the Lorentz
Contraction?
6. Is this a vindication of Lorentz's "ether" theory?
7. Is this considered a serious challenge to the "Higg's mechanism"?
------------------------------------------------
Can you please give me the "low down" on what is the majority opinion
of the "ZPF theory of Inertia" and where it stands vis a vis
QFT, GR, QM, and current Quantum Gravity theories?
This ZPF theory of Inertia seems to have "come out of the blue",
and seems unrelated to any other major branch of Physics?
-------------------------------------------------
Are we now to consider that there is a "semiclassical"
explanation of GR from electromagnetic theory that doesn't
require QM other than to "postulate" the existence of
the zero point field? Is that what this is.. a "semiclassical
theory of Gravity"?
Is this a "semiclassical" explanation of GR, as opposed to a full
blown Quantum explanation of GR?
Is this a major ground tremor of Quantum Gravity... or is this a
flash in the pan?
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================